Is Christianity like no other religion?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Most religions are similar to one another in some respects. In fact, even Christianity is similar to some religions.

But one thing that sets Christianity apart from other faiths is the concept of God dying for the sake of man. In every other religion, it is man who dies for God, never the other way around. Isn't Christianity unique in this respect? This concept is simply unheard of in other faiths.

The passion of the Christ is not something one can imagine, as one would imagine a four-armed god or something. It is something so breathtaking, so extraordinary that even the wildest imagination couldn't have developed it.

All this makes Christianity totally different from other faiths, whether or not one agrees with it, whether or not one thinks it is true.

Mahatma

[Dimentio]

Not really. The concept of gods sacrificing themselves was quite usual in old "pagan" religions, both the various Indo-European religions (Greek, Germanic, Celtic), the Egyptian religion and the Aztec religion. The typical example was the sun, which "died" each night and then was reborn the next morning.

The Babylonian and the Nordic history of creation is about the slaying of a beast which then became the foundations of the world. In the Aztec story of creation, a god threw himself into a flaming furnace to create the sun.

Sacrifice at both ends are usual for most religions really.

[x371322]

Yeah, all religions put death on a pedestal. Nothing unique there... Why would it even be necessary for an all powerful being to kill his own son (himself?) to save mankind? Why wouldn't he just, you know, make it happen? It all seems so trivial to me.

[Blackscare]

But one thing that sets Christianity apart from other faiths is the concept of God dying for the sake of man.

Thats actually like the most plagiarized thing found in Christianity. Ever.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Most religions are similar to one another in some respects. In fact, even Christianity is similar to some religions.

But one thing that sets Christianity apart from other faiths is the concept of God dying for the sake of man. In every other religion, it is man who dies for God, never the other way around. Isn't Christianity unique in this respect? This concept is simply unheard of in other faiths.

The passion of the Christ is not something one can imagine, as one would imagine a four-armed god or something. It is something so breathtaking, so extraordinary that even the wildest imagination couldn't have developed it.

All this makes Christianity totally different from other faiths, whether or not one agrees with it, whether or not one thinks it is true.

Mahatma

Technically it was God's son. But apparently god's son is god...so...basically it's all nonsense.

[M-26-7]

Every religion has something, or some things, that make it unique.

I mean, duh. That is why the different religions are different religions. This doesn't seem like an earth-shattering point to make.

The thing is, only the religion's adherents think that the one thing which makes it unique is the one thing that somehow makes it true. To everyone else, it is like saying "Blue is the only true color! Look how blue it is! The other colors can't compete"

I'd be impressed if I ever saw a religion that managed to not be unique in any way. That religion I might give some consideration to, because that truly would be a feat.

[Sir Comradical]

Every religion has something, or some things, that make it unique.

I mean, duh. That is why the different religions are different religions. This doesn't seem like an earth-shattering point to make.

The thing is, only the religion's adherents think that the one thing which makes it unique is the one thing that somehow makes it true. To everyone else, it is like saying "Blue is the only true color! Look how blue it is! The other colors can't compete"

I'd be impressed if I ever saw a religion that managed to not be unique in any way. That religion I might give some consideration to, because that truly would be a feat.

Exactly. Adherents of every religion can make the same claim, that their religion is unique. It's not hard to create a unique delusion.

[Sir Comradical]

Mahatma, where are you from in India? What's your native tongue?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Not really. The concept of gods sacrificing themselves was quite usual in old "pagan" religions, both the various Indo-European religions (Greek, Germanic, Celtic), the Egyptian religion and the Aztec religion. The typical example was the sun, which "died" each night and then was reborn the next morning.

The Babylonian and the Nordic history of creation is about the slaying of a beast which then became the foundations of the world. In the Aztec story of creation, a god threw himself into a flaming furnace to create the sun.

Sacrifice at both ends are usual for most religions really.

That's mythology. But they don't give you a philosophical basis as to why God himself has to die, how He alone could take away our sins, and so on. Only Christianity does that, whether or not you agree with their reasoning. I hope you see the difference. To be more precise, the passion of the Christ is unique in that you don't find 'gods' in other religions going through that.

[x371322]

That's mythology.

And Christianity isn't mythology? Please... As far as I can see there's not much difference in worshiping "God" and worshiping the sun. Hell, at least I can see the sun.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

And Christianity isn't mythology? Please... As far as I can see there's not much difference in worshiping "God" and worshiping the sun. Hell, at least I can see the sun.

I am talking about uniqueness, not 'rightness' or 'wrongness'.

[#FF0000]

Christianity is not a very unique religion at all, no.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think many people seek explanations for why we suffer in life through religion. It seems like in modern Christianity the passion is a big part of this - it's an explanation and a promise that it's all for a reason and a better life after this. But I don't think that it is unique.

I think what sets Christianity apart from earlier religions (but is also found in other more modern monotheistic religions) is that for followers, it is not required that you are from a certain location, social caste, or ethnic group. So unlike many pantheistic religions, the more modern ones create a "community" that can exist in many different locations. Religious people would say that these communities are based around shared values, but on a practical and material level, these communities were useful for a mobile population at a time when city-states had different gods and religious codes.

[mikelepore]

Why would it even be necessary for an all powerful being to kill his own son (himself?) to save mankind?

When I was a child my parents tried to raise me to believe in Jesus. I could never understand the intended meaning of the word "for" in the phrase "Jesus died for our sins." I asked the religion teachers whether "for" was intended in the sense of the wrong person getting blamed for an offense because of mistaken identity, as if someone says "the police thought you were me, so you went to jail for my crime." No one could answer me. People go around repeating a phrase without even being able to tell someone what they mean when they say it. They don't even seem to be aware that they're saying something that needs to be clarified.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

When I was a child my parents tried to raise me to believe in Jesus. I could never understand the intended meaning of the word "for" in the phrase "Jesus died for our sins." I asked the religion teachers whether "for" was intended in the sense of the wrong person getting blamed for an offense because of mistaken identity, as if someone says "the police thought you were me, so you went to jail for my crime." No one could answer me. People go around repeating a phrase without even being able to tell someone what they mean when they say it. They don't even seem to be aware that they're saying something that needs to be clarified.

It is called sacrifice. Since God is just, He punishes sin. But then, He is also forgiving, so he makes the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of humanity. At one stroke, as it were, both problems are solved.

[Invincible Summer]

It is called sacrifice. Since God is just, He punishes sin. But then, He is also forgiving, so he makes the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of humanity. At one stroke, as it were, both problems are solved.

And humanity has been (supposedly, if we follow your belief system's timeline) better off because of His selflessness... how?


I remember being 12, asking my Sunday School teacher if Christianity could be considered a cult. I rattled off some info I read about cults (I liked to read random shit as a kid) and then my Sunday School teacher's response was "Well it's because they're wrong. They don't believe in Jesus. That's why we're not a cult."

Even as a 12 year old kid I knew that was a bullshit answer.

Why do Christians believe they can get away with such vague, cop-out, intellectually vacuous answers?



Also, this thread is starting to border on preaching on Mahatma Gandhi's part, so watch it, or I'll have to close it.

[Rousedruminations]

lol true to that !:D

[mikelepore]

It is called sacrifice. Since God is just, He punishes sin. But then, He is also forgiving, so he makes the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of humanity. At one stroke, as it were, both problems are solved.

That would mean that God's desire is that someone somewhere gets punished if sin is committed, even if it's not the person who committed the sin. It doesn't make God sound very wise to me. It reminds me of the scene in "The Prince and the Pauper" where the prince explains that he has a whipping boy who gets whipped each time the prince misbehaves, because the prince can't be whipped, and yet it's required that someone shall receive the punishment. This is a problem with the Biblical concept of a good God -- it's a notion of goodness that people believed in ancient times, when it was considered normal for rulers to destroy entire communities because some, although not all, of the people in those communities had been disobedient. Since people no longer consider such styles of rulership to be good, the God of the Bible comes across looking like a crazed tyrant. In 1942, after Heydrich was assassinated, Hitler retaliated by ordering that the entire village of Ledice, Czechoslovakia be destroyed. That sounds to me like something that the God of the Bible would do. The crime must be "paid for" by someone, even if the wrong people "pay."

[Mahatma Gandhi]

That would mean that God's desire is that someone somewhere gets punished if sin is committed, even if it's not the person who committed the sin.

and


[In 1942, after Heydrich was assassinated, Hitler retaliated by ordering that the entire village of Ledice, Czechoslovakia be destroyed. That sounds to me like something that the God of the Bible would do. The crime must be "paid for" by someone, even if the wrong people "pay."

The difference is Hitler (and humans in general) wanted to sacrifice others, whereas God sacrificed Himself. That's the difference between hate and love.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

And humanity has been (supposedly, if we follow your belief system's timeline) better off because of His selflessness... how?

:confused:

What are you talking about? How did you arrive at that? The wages of sin is death, but thanks to His supreme sacrifice, we do not have to worry about that. That doesn't mean humanity will be better-off ... it is still subject to sin (which is why you still see wars, exploitation etc.) though the consequences are now taken care of.

[Invincible Summer]

:confused:

What are you talking about? How did you arrive at that? The wages of sin is death, but thanks to His supreme sacrifice, we do not have to worry about that. That doesn't mean humanity will be better-off ... it is still subject to sin (which is why you still see wars, exploitation etc.) though the consequences are now taken care of.

So what is the point of Jesus dying? You said he died "for the sake of humanity," but what does that even mean then, if it doesn't change anything for us? Who cares if the "consequences" (which I don't think anyone even thinks about for most of their lives, and not even proven by anything other than some words in a book) are taken care of if everything that people actually go through every day is still fucked?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

So what is the point of Jesus dying? You said he died "for the sake of humanity," but what does that even mean then, if it doesn't change anything for us?

But it does change everything! It has saved you from perdition.


Who cares if the "consequences" (which I don't think anyone even thinks about for most of their lives, and not even proven by anything other than some words in a book) are taken care of if everything that people actually go through every day is still fucked?

What's a lifetime of misery compared to an eternity of joy?:)

[Invincible Summer]

But it does change everything! It has saved you from perdition.



What if I don't believe in hell? Why should Jesus be meaningful to me?




What's a lifetime of misery compared to an eternity of joy?:)

This is why you are restricted, and why I find these kind of beliefs repulsive.

[Raúl Duke]

The wages of sin


It has saved you from perdition.

but is sin or hell real at all?

this jesus person more likely died over imaginary things, poor delusional sod.

[Sir Comradical]

:confused:

What are you talking about? How did you arrive at that? The wages of sin is death, but thanks to His supreme sacrifice, we do not have to worry about that. That doesn't mean humanity will be better-off ... it is still subject to sin (which is why you still see wars, exploitation etc.) though the consequences are now taken care of.

There's no evidence for any of the superstitious drivel you huddle under.
No wonder you're restricted.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

What if I don't believe in hell? Why should Jesus be meaningful to me?

That's a matter of personal experience. Also, you believe in this world, don't you? Then why is it so hard for you to believe in hell?


This is why you are restricted, and why I find these kind of beliefs repulsive.

Glad to know that in an ideal communist society, people are going to be punished for what they think rather than for what they do.:rolleyes:

[Mahatma Gandhi]

but is sin or hell real at all?

this jesus person more likely died over imaginary things, poor delusional sod.

In that case, why do you feel it is wrong for the capitalists to exploit the workers, or for Hitler to have committed genocide, or for Israel to occupy Palestine, and so on?

[Dimentio]

Yeah, all religions put death on a pedestal. Nothing unique there... Why would it even be necessary for an all powerful being to kill his own son (himself?) to save mankind? Why wouldn't he just, you know, make it happen? It all seems so trivial to me.

Christianity is a religion for people who want to regress back to two or three years of age.

For example, if daddy is holding the hand of his three-year old son against the oven, the child will most likely blame himself. The same thing with christianity. If you are run over by a car, hit by lightning or suffer cancer, its god's punishment for your sinfulness. Christianity is ultimately a religion built on guilt. It is a sick philosophy.

[Sir Comradical]

Glad to know that in an ideal communist society, people are going to be punished for what they think rather than for what they do.:rolleyes:

Under communism, you can believe in whatever nonsense you like, but everyone will point and laugh at your primitive beliefs.

[Dimentio]

This thread almost makes me want to cry. :(

[Mahatma Gandhi]

This thread almost makes me want to cry. :(

See? You're already on the path of repentance.;)

[Invincible Summer]

That's a matter of personal experience. Also, you believe in this world, don't you? Then why is it so hard for you to believe in hell?

I suppose it depends on how one defines "hell." If it's actually a place where one/one's "soul" can go when one dies, then I don't believe it exists. It just seems really silly to arbitrarily send me/my "soul" somewhere just because I didn't do what one god out of 100000 gods in all the world's religions liked.

If "hell" is just a mental state of self-loathing and depression, then I am more willing to accept that, and probably already there.



Glad to know that in an ideal communist society, people are going to be punished for what they think rather than for what they do.:rolleyes:
1) The fact that you think Revleft is supposed to mirror "an ideal Communist society" is hilarious.

2) People like you probably won't even help build a communist society, since "this life" isn't as important as "eternal life." Why should you care?


In that case, why do you feel it is wrong for the capitalists to exploit the workers, or for Hitler to have committed genocide, or for Israel to occupy Palestine, and so on?

Because people ought to not oppress others.

[x371322]

Gandhi you're talking in circles here. Answer this:

Why would it even be necessary for God to die on earth so we could go to heaven? He's supposed to be all powerful isn't he? Why wouldn't he just make it all happen? Why so much trivial bullshit? You say that Jesus "died for our sins," but what the hell does that mean? Why would he even have to? Saying things like "the wages of sin is death" doesn't make any sense. You're just parroting the same old drivel. It doesn't really mean anything.

And here, I thought you guys might get a kick out of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2bpc7LSRZc

[Blackscare]

I don't like zeitgeist normally, but check out this little video and tell me that Jesus or Christianity is all that unique. This info is available other places as well, this is just the most easily accessible one that came to mind. The shit they get into that is more conspiratorial, don't listen to. But they point out the fact that Christianity is probably the least original or unique religion existing right now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
It gets really good around halfway through the video. The religion bit is the only part of Zeitgeist worth anything.


Also


But they don't give you a philosophical basis as to why God himself has to die, how He alone could take away our sins, and so on.You don't know that for a fact, you're making shit up again. The only religion you know anything about, and you've proven this over and over again, is Christianity, and you just assume that it has unique qualities for absolutely no reason with absolutely no proof.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

I suppose it depends on how one defines "hell." If it's actually a place where one/one's "soul" can go when one dies, then I don't believe it exists. It just seems really silly to arbitrarily send me/my "soul" somewhere just because I didn't do what one god out of 100000 gods in all the world's religions liked.

What I am saying is, If this world could be so horrible that we might even call it hell, is it really all that hard to believe that there could be another place far worse?


Because people ought to not oppress others.

Why? Because you say so?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Gandhi you're talking in circles here. Answer this:

Why would it even be necessary for God to die on earth so we could go to heaven? He's supposed to be all powerful isn't he? Why wouldn't he just make it all happen?

I explained it already. God punishes sin: that's His law. If He doesn't, He should only break his own law, which He won't. But God is also as forgiving as He is righteous, so the only way to reconcile these two is to take the sins upon Himself. Thus crucifixion makes perfect sense as a supreme sacrifice.:thumbup1:

[x371322]

Thus crucifixion makes perfect sense as a supreme sacrifice.

I'm afraid it doesn't. God punishes sin? If he created everything, then he created sin. He created evil. If not, then he isn't all powerful. You can't have it both ways. At best he allows evil to exist, and quite frankly that's just as bad as being evil himself.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

I'm afraid it doesn't. God punishes sin? If he created everything, then he created sin. He created evil. If not, then he isn't all powerful. You can't have it both ways. At best he allows evil to exist, and quite frankly that's just as bad as being evil himself.

Since God is the author of life, do such questions apply to Him? Do the characters in a book question the author?

[Dimentio]

See? You're already on the path of repentance.;)

You must be trolling, man.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

My parents are what might be called "moderately religious". My Dad was pretty much of an outright atheist and had contempt for organized religion. He kept this hidden until my late teens. My Mom was somewhat more religious. Both my parents agreed that religion was important for "the sake of the kids", that is it was important for moral or cultural reasons.

Growing up I went, at different times, to a wide variety of more or less "mainline" Protestant churches. I heard a lot about the "good news" of Jesus.It was the idea that "Jesus died for us". There seemed to be different versions of this but it was along the lines of "if we believed in Jesus (either as a role model, a "personal Saviour" or as a god) we would have "our sins forgiven".

I've thought about this a lot but it has never made any sense to me whatsoever. "God", some vast transcendental being who created the universe took human form (apparently only once) to "save" humanity from something, I'm not sure what. This unique avatar was a Palestinian rebel, apparently a confused revolutionary, who was tortured to death by Roman occupiers some 2000 years ago. If a person either "believes" or has some sort of personal relationship with this avatar one's sins will be forgiven and one will "go to heaven" after they die. If one does not have this belief, one will be punished by "going to hell", where presumably one will suffer indescribable tortures forever.

This might be a comic book version of Christian theology, but basically that's how it was presented to me. I understand it takes the pagan paradigm of sacrificing to a god and turns it on its head. "God sacrificed Himself to Himself so we wouldn't have to". It still makes no sense.

The Christian paradigm is guilt vs. redemption. I have never (except for a brief time in parochial school where this was encouraged) felt guilty about much. I have done things which have been thoughtless, stupid, greedy and/or harmful to others. All one can do is learn from their mistakes and if possible provide compensation for someone who has been injured. Guilt shouldn't play much of a role.

As for "what happens after I die" this isn't something which concerns me much. I am more interested in a productive life right here and now.

Of course if "God" designed the world so people will be punished for not believing in one particular interpretation (or even a tiny subsect of this interpretation) of what "He" (its always a "he") is like, than this god must be indescribably vindicative, viscous, and evil.

[Dimentio]

Since God is the author of life, do such questions apply to Him? Do the characters in a book question the author?

If we say that I am a scientist and I have created, out of DNA and RNA, a pig, would it be more justifiable for me to cut the legs off that pig and throw it to the dobermanns than if I did it with a pig I haven't created?

By your logic, parents have the right to do whatever they want with their kids.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

If we say that I am a scientist and I have created, out of DNA and RNA, a pig, would it be more justifiable for me to cut the legs off that pig and throw it to the dobermanns than if I did it with a pig I haven't created?

By your logic, parents have the right to do whatever they want with their kids.

It is an analogy and you're 'over analyzing' it. Besides, you're not God, so...

[Blackscare]

Care to address the blatant plagiarism of Christianity, as pointed out in my previous post?

[x371322]

Do the characters in a book question the author?

Apparently not. Seeing as how God himself is nothing but a character in a book.

[Blackscare]

Do the characters in a book question the author?

Czad commented on this, I was thinking about doing so as well.

If you're calling us characters in a book, well then yes they do. We are.

And really, who on earth would want to worship such an egomaniac anyway? Why create some cosmic play where you know exactly whats going to happen, and punish people for doing exactly what you knew they would do? Seems sadistic and childish.

[RedStarOverChina]

The topic has been successfully rebuttalled within one post, and the topic starter simply looks ridiculous for stating as a matter-of-fact that Christianity is "unique".

The Egyptian god Horus sacrificed himself on the cross (also between two thieves) for mankind. The Hindu god Krishna also did something similar, I'm told. I'm fairly certain there are other religions with similar themes.

It's never too late to admit you're wrong, you know.

[Dimentio]

The topic has been successfully rebuttalled within one post, and the topic starter simply looks ridiculous for stating as a matter-of-fact that Christianity is "unique".

The Egyptian god Horus sacrificed himself on the cross (also between two thieves) for mankind. The Hindu god Krishna also did something similar, I'm told. I'm fairly certain there are other religions with similar themes.

It's never too late to admit you're wrong, you know.

Zeitgeist: The movie used this information from Jordon Maxwell, who's somewhat of a crackpot. Christianity is similar enough to older religions, we don't have to invent similarities.

[ChrisK]

Zeitgeist: The movie used this information from Jordon Maxwell, who's somewhat of a crackpot. Christianity is similar enough to older religions, we don't have to invent similarities.

Many of the similarities that Zeitgeist uses are mistakes, but are for the most part correct. Maxwell was not the first to point out many of these similarities.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As others have said, nothing in Christianity is unique. Joseph Campbell describes how even the details of the crucification have a very close similarity to other pagan myths. (Campbell of course was an idealist and his politics seemed to be right wing). Other wroiers-Eliade, Carl Jung, did similiar work.

What appears to happened is that Christianity started as a sect within Judaism.The historic "Jesus" if that person actually existed, seems to have been a failed rebel leader. whoever wrote or codified the New Testament tacked on, "cut and paste" widely known stories and myths from the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean.

According to Engels early Christianity originally was a form of proto-socialism, providing community and protection for oppressed layers in the Roman Empire. Under Constantine and a few later emperors the Roman ruling class, after a lot of debate, made the decision to adopt Christianity as the official imperial ideology as a means of preserving a declining empire. This strategy worked to an extent, Roman culture formed the basis of later European culture. The Eastern Empire survived until 1453. Christianity throughout most of its history was fiercely intolerant and was essentially a totalitarian ideology.

With what we know today about history, anthropology, comparative religion, and science its absurd to say Christianity (or any religion) is literally true. Christianity, at its best, can function "mythopoetically", can provide a powerful metaphor for the human condition.

[mikelepore]

The Egyptian god Horus sacrificed himself on the cross (also between two thieves) for mankind. The Hindu god Krishna also did something similar, I'm told. I'm fairly certain there are other religions with similar themes.

Also, in Greek mythology, Dionysus was crucified.

It looks to me that Christianity is the product of some committee selecting elements from other religions and compiling them into a package. Where the performer of great feats had a divine father and human mother, we think of Heracles. In assigning importance to virginity, we think of Athena. Some of the copying was so obvious that it's silly, for example, it had been only a few years since the report that a special star appeared in the sky when Julius Caesar was born.

Judaism copied also. Eve's apple and the expulsion from eden is a variation of the Greek story of Pandora's box. For the story of the flood, the Egyptians had previously copied the story from the Sumerians. The idea of a competition between good and evil cosmic forces was taken from Zoroastrianism and its later form Manicheanism. Lecturing people that having one god makes more sence than having many gods goes back to the pharaoh Akhenaten. The concept of sacrifice goes back to the Greek belief that the gods enjoyed the smell of the smoke of burning meat rising into the sky, so people can give a god a gift by killing an animal. The idea of angels as messengers comes from the idea of Hermes.

It's common knowledge today that Mormonism and Scientology were invented by someone making the conscious choice to fabricate a story by interweaving fantastic literary devices, but what most people don't realize is that doing this has always been a standard practice for religions in general.

[Pawn Power]

"Is Christianity like no other religion?"

Christianity is based on numerous other pagan religions.

[Demogorgon]

Also, in Greek mythology, Dionysus was crucified.

It looks to me that Christianity is the product of some committee selecting elements from other religions and compiling them into a package. Where the performer of great feats had a divine father and human mother, we think of Heracles. In assigning importance to virginity, we think of Athena. Some of the copying was so obvious that it's silly, for example, it had been only a few years since the report that a special star appeared in the sky when Julius Caesar was born.

Judaism copied also. Eve's apple and the expulsion from eden is a variation of the Greek story of Pandora's box. For the story of the flood, the Egyptians had previously copied the story from the Sumerians. The idea of a competition between good and evil cosmic forces was taken from Zoroastrianism and its later form Manicheanism. Lecturing people that having one god makes more sene than having many gods goes back to the pharaoh Akhenaten. The concept of sacrifice goes back to the Greek belief that the gods enjoyed the smell of the smoke of burning meat rising into the sky, so people can give a god a gift by killing an animal. The idea of angels as messengers comes from the idea of Hermes.

It's common knowledge today that Mormonism and Scientology were invented by someone making the conscious choice to fabricate a story by interweaving fantastic literary devices, but what most people don't realize is that doing this has always been a standard practice for religions in general.
Yeah, though the story of the Garden of Eden predates that of Pandora's Box I think.

Anyway though, it is not so much deliberate copying over of stories, though that plainly happened, the key thing is, death and rebirth, sin and redemption, hope during hard times and so on hold a deep fascination for humans and stories about these will have pride of place in every culture. Just look at film, literature, music and so on! In ancient cultures where stories were used to explain that which they didn't understand and those stories grew into myths which became central to their cultures, it was absolutely inevitable that the concepts I mentioned would be included.

That's why you get them in religions which had no connection at all to religions of the Mediterranean and Middle East like the Aztec religion or the Native American religions. For an interesting comparison look at some of what Coyote got up to in Native American myths and compare him to Loki in Norse mythology. The particulars of the stories are different but you can see much the same thinking and message behind them and that is because the concept of the trickster is something that is fascinating to humanity.

Now obviously I have just talked about the basic archetypes behind religion and how all cultures draw on them, the post you made, that was so appealing to me, was about how they have stories not just drawing on the same concepts but literally borrow from each other to come up with their stories. We should be careful not to presume this is always the case of course. You don't need to draw on other religions to come up with the story of the flood. Every society with experience of devastating flooding will incorporate it into its mythology but the clear similarities between Jesus and various other figures from other religions is the real fascinating thing.

As I understand it, what most likely happened was there was an individual-or several individuals whose stories got tangled together-who built up a following, annoyed the authorities and got put to death in a gruesome manner, whose followers went on to make a major nuisance of themselves to the same authorities who executed their leader. Naturally accounts of his life had to be told and of course embellished and in those days that meant adding all the usual mythical features, performing miracles like raising people from the dead, turning water into wine and whatnot. They also needed a suitably mystical death story hence the crucifixion, which has "borrowed" features as you mention. Features that were standard in mythical stories at the time.

Incidentally mind you, an actual crucifixion is pretty likely. It was exactly what became of those who upset the Roman authorities at the time. And contrary to the biblical portrayal of Pilate as wanting to let Jesus off, historical evidence suggests he was particularly ruthless even by Roman standards, so I have little trouble believing he would send someone to his death about that. The thing about the two thieves and such would have been added in though. Similarly the notion of the Sanhedrin sending him to Pilate for execution doesn't seem to match with other accounts of them at the time (it was in that era that Jewish notions that God actually absolutely banned the death penalty were coming to the fore, and the Jewish people were always far less blood thirsty in that regard than their neighbours).

That being said, and I drift off topic slightly here, the most important thing to many who were busy embellishing their dead leader's story wouldn't have been making him look like a Greek or Roman figure. They would have been concerned about making him look like the Jewish Messiah. You can see that pretty clearly in the Gospels, and other books of the new testament. Those written for Roman and Greek audiences play up similarities to their divine figures, those written for jewish audiences are keen to show Jesus favoring various audiences.

I do not write all this to claim that somebody sat down and made up a religion out of thin air for cynical reasons the way scientology was invented. All of this was done over time by many people and doubtless the stories got a little more outlandish with each retelling-and that goes for a lot of mythology in general.

Scientology is a bit different because it isn't based in ancient mythology, it is plain made up in an easily documented process for cynical reasons. I know less about Mormonism and am in no great hurry to rectify that but as I understand it, it was a rewriting of Christianity to suit the particular needs of those doing so at the time. Again pretty cynical. Doubtless a great deal of the embellishing of the Jesus story was cynical too, but the process would have been different, more like other ancient religion in the days before a mass media able to spread silly ideas quickly.

All of this is a long way of saying there is nothing remotely unique about Christianity, it plays to all the archetypes religion plays to and in the particular stories draws on versions of stories already doing the rounds at the time.

[Raúl Duke]

In that case, why do you feel it is wrong for the capitalists to exploit the workers, or for Hitler to have committed genocide, or for Israel to occupy Palestine, and so on?

Because

1) I work when I'm employed from time to time. I hate wage labor and I prefer to, when I can, defend my interest as a worker and the interest of other workers as a matter of solidarity. As long as I need to be employed to make a living, I see social anarchism/communism as ultimately worthwhile.

2) Anyone with a shred of humanity would see the holocaust as 'wrong' since it's a meaningless (since racial science is incorrect, etc) slaughter of millions of people.

3)Israel's occupation of Palestine has resulted in the needless borderline racist oppression of Arabs by Israeli government and military.

On numbers 2 and 3, I see them as wrong as a matter of empathy (a common human emotion).

You do not need religion to consider things "right" or "wrong." Religion in itself does not even make one a more moral person than an atheist, since some immoral (and in some cases particularly heinous) acts have been committed, perhaps hypocritically (although in some historical cases their religion willed it or was ok with it) by self-described moral religious persons.

Ethics are subjective: they come from the person (and their understanding of their past/present experiences and perceived future) herself, from their human emotion, sometimes logic/reason, and from the wider culture/society.

[mikelepore]

I do not write all this to claim that somebody sat down and made up a religion out of thin air for cynical reasons the way scientology was invented. All of this was done over time by many people and doubtless the stories got a little more outlandish with each retelling-and that goes for a lot of mythology in general.

I don't think there were mainly cynical reasons either, but something more like the lack of a strict boundary between genuine inquiry, entertaining storytelling, and psychological payoffs. Assume that the first act is that, over the dinner table and around the campfire, an unlimited range of stories is repeated and embellished. Then something like natural selection determines which of those stories are forgotten and which are taught to the next generation. In forming that selection, individual motives are varied. Someone interested in cosmology will select for the ability of stories to explain cosmology. Another person may enjoy being a know-it-all and modifies a story to change "it has been suggested that...." to say "it is certainly known that...." I would not underestimate the selection pressure where some stories are useful to parents who want to make their children shut up (when grandmother died, she traveled to a better world, so shut up.) Tribal and civic leaders are interested in the stability of the way of life, so they will attempt to inject the element that obedient people and heroes are rewarded and criminals are punished in the afterlife. I think the process of copying from other religions is part of that larger process in which every possible story gets told, after which an aggregate selection process acts upon them.

[Invincible Summer]

What I am saying is, If this world could be so horrible that we might even call it hell, is it really all that hard to believe that there could be another place far worse?


Uh... yeah... :confused:

That's like asking "Okay so being skinned alive over a month and then cut up into hundreds of pieces is probably the most gruesome type of murder... but can you imagine something far more gruesome?"



I explained it already. God punishes sin: that's His law. If He doesn't, He should only break his own law, which He won't.
Why?


But God is also as forgiving as He is righteous, so the only way to reconcile these two is to take the sins upon Himself.
Why?


Thus crucifixion makes perfect sense as a supreme sacrifice.:thumbup1:
Why? Why not being drawn and quartered?

[AK]

What's a lifetime of misery compared to an eternity of joy?:)
The fact that you're dead permanently and can't actually experience any joy. So I'll take the lifetime of misery, thanks.

[Adi Shankara]

That's why I always liked hinduism...whenever personal gods are mentioned (although Hinduism doesn't need such a concept to exist), they are always mentioned as being perfect by their very nature of existence--thus the concept of "evil" is perfect in itself to the world view...basically, the concept of good is as necessary and required as evil and suffering are, in order to better motivate one towards ultimate moksha, which is where you get godesses (almost always goddesses, since concepts abstract concepts seem to be associated with feminine energy in Hinduism) like Kali and the goddess Chhinnamasta.


The fact that you're dead permanently and can't actually experience any joy. So I'll take the lifetime of misery, thanks.

truth is, we don't know, it's impossible to know, and while that is a likely scenario, it is also equally unlikely, considering that our very own consciousness in our body that we posess is unlikely.

it just doesn't seem logical to me to believe that we are here for no reason and come from nowhere, spawn into a body that we didn't choose, only to die and disappear forever once again into nowhere.

thinking of Occam's razor (and Padmasambhava before that)...why live at all, at that point?

[AK]

truth is, we don't know, it's impossible to know, and while that is a likely scenario, it is also equally unlikely, considering that our very own consciousness in our body that we posess is unlikely.
It's "unlikely". Wow. That's your argument? The actual truth is, we are here by a long, complicated accident. Our sentience is an accident. We know damn well that, when we die, the biological processes in our body are finished. No more metabolism. No more thinking. You're dead and nothing will save you. Reality is really quite depressing and it sucks ass.


it just doesn't seem logical to me to believe that we are here for no reason and come from nowhere, spawn into a body that we didn't choose, only to die and disappear forever once again into nowhere.
It seems more logical than thinking that some omnipotent, omnipresent deity has some sort of plan for us. We don't "spawn into a body we don't choose". Enough of this "soul" bullshit.


thinking of Occam's razor (and Padmasambhava before that)...why live at all, at that point?
Maybe reality just disproved Occam's razor. There is no necessity for anything to be alive. We're just happy accidents :)

[Queercommie Girl]

Why is Christianity any different or somehow unique? All feudal religions are alike. It's true that feudal religions are different from slavery religions like that of the Incas and Aztecs, but that's due to the different socio-economic mode, not due to anything unique in Christianity. This kind of thinking is just reactionary cultural essentialism and Eurocentrism.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

It's "unlikely". Wow. That's your argument? The actual truth is, we are here by a long, complicated accident. Our sentience is an accident. We know damn well that, when we die, the biological processes in our body are finished. No more metabolism. No more thinking. You're dead and nothing will save you. Reality is really quite depressing and it sucks ass.

You must be an unhappy soul.:( Try reading CS Lewis, and perhaps you'll learn something.

[AK]

I don't have an argument, so instead I'll start preaching to you and claim that you are at fault.
:rolleyes: